ArticleCancers2025
Risk Assessment Models for Predicting Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer.
Article in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- High IntratumoralInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- From Physiology to Clinical Practice in Pancreatic Cancer-Related Thromboembolism-A Review.Cancers · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundData on the performance of the Khorana, PROTECHT, and ONKOTEV risk assessment models (RAMs) to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC) receiving outpatient chemotherapy remain limited. We performed a head-to-head comparison of these RAMs in patients with newly diagnosed PC enrolled in the nationwide, multicenter, and prospective BACAP cohort.
methodsThe Khorana, PROTECHT, and ONKOTEV scores were calculated at enrollment prior to chemotherapy. Patients were stratified into intermediate- and high-VTE-risk groups according to each RAM. The primary study outcome was VTE at a 6-month follow-up. The accuracy and discriminatory performance of the scores were assessed by calculating time-dependent Brier scores and c-indexes. Sub-distribution hazard ratios (SHRs) between high- and intermediate-risk patients were estimated.
resultsOf 762 PC patients, 73 developed VTE within 6 months. In the competing risk analysis, the cumulative incidence of VTE at 6 months was 16.4% (95% CI, 13.8-19.1). The time-dependent Brier score was 0.14 (95% CI, 0.12-0.15) for all scores, indicating well-calibrated predictions. The respective time-dependent c-index of the Khorana, the PROTECHT, and the ONKOTEV scores was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.46-0.55), 0.50 (95% CI, 0.49-0.51), and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.48-0.58), indicating poor discrimination. The SHRs between high- and intermediate-risk patients ranged from 1.05 (95% CI, 0.76-1.44) for the ONKOTEV score to 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77-1.45) for the Khorana score.
conclusionIn newly diagnosed PC patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy, the Khorana, PROTECHT, and ONKOTEV scores demonstrated a poor performance in predicting VTE at 6 months, highlighting the need for new tools to guide thromboprophylaxis decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.